The ladies masters athletes from the SMTFA competing at the Flash Athletic Meet in Oct at the Bishan Stadium.

9/06/2010

Voices of the disadvantaged

The new measures to curb property speculation has raised the voice of the disadvantaged to their needs. Before this, it was always the voice of the big developers calling the shot, the voice of the speculators telling how successful they were in investing in properties, and the voice of some corners praising the virtues of free market forces, and the govt cannot to anything about it.
There are more people writing to the forum to express their support of the new measures. The reason is simple. Housing is a basic need and can be a very serious problem in land scarce Singapore. Leaving it to the fictitious market forces will make the rich very rich and the less well to do in big trouble if they miscalculated or missed the chance to buy a place to stay. It could mean slogging for 10 or 20 years all for nothing.
Would the govt review its fundamental assumptions on housing for the people, as a speculative investment instrument, to ensure that all Singaporeans be given a chance to buy a HDB flat? Starting with a HDB flat is the first stepping stone to many Singaporeans who don't have the privilege of wealthy parents buying properties for them in advance.
The govt has a duty and obligation to see that no Singaporean is cut off from the HDB route. There is no need to butter the bread of developers on both sides. There is no need to make sure that private property prices must always go up. The top priority is to provide every Singaporean a roof over their heads, at an affordable price according to the buyers' ability, not some joker's private definition.
The public housing sector must be separated from the private sector where everything goes. The public housing is the backbone of this country and its people. Breaking this backbone will undermine the social structure and well being of the people and country. The disadvantaged, the losers, the not so well endowed, cannot be thrown into the deep end with the sharks, the speculators and the super rich. They simply cannot compete.
The govt cannot shirk this responsibility if it is to be the govt of the people and for the people.

They slowed down HDB builing program to create a severe shortage, prices shoot through the roof, they kept saying still affordable so that they can keep on laughing their way to the bank, until.........election coming, then sudden sign of reversal and used that as a vote buying strategy.

Now, unbelievably, so many good things happening and we thought they are at last listening. Don't be fooled.

> The govt cannot shirk this responsibility if it is to be the govt of the people and for the people.<

Collectivism gone mad.

The question to this vague claim is "which people" are you talking about.

The way you argue is that "the disadvantaged" in some twisted-logic way must be afforded "more rights" over the others.

Who is to judge what "disadvantaged" means? For e.g. I am disadvantaged because I can't suck my own cock, therefore the govt is responsible for providing me free blow jobs. If I don't get my sexual satisfaction I will go crazy and therefore be unproductive as a citizen.

Singapore got one thing right: it is a meritocracy...not that I believe any sort of "cracy" should rule, but kudos to the hardworking majority who believe that "you get what you earn".

Another piece of unsubstantiated horseshit from redbean:

> The public housing is the backbone of this country and its people. <

Nonsense. HDB was initiated as a way to "solve" the issue of housing the people who's land the govt stole. Over the years it has become a political tool to manipulate the masses.

> This is a civilised and democratic society where the elected govt promised to look after the less able. <

WOW! You define "what it is" with such certitude -- as if to say "I am right because I know I am right".

But you trip your own argument up: what do you mean by "civilised and democratic"? BTW, there is no such thing as "society" only individuals, therefore it is the individuals who are "civilised and democratic". Are all of them thgat way? Of course not, that's impossible.

Also, just because the govt says something doesn't necessarily mean they will abide by there words. Again, there is no such "thing" as govt -- the govt is just a buch of organised resources and humans, so it it the humans who speak and make promises -- to make the citizens feel better and confident, but the same humans who comprise the govt don not necessarily have to do as they say.

And once again, you make the error of "collective labelling" -- i.e. "the disadvantaged". These are individuals who are experiencing certain circumstances and predicaments.

"The govt should help the disadvantaged" -- under close scrutiny, that is fucking meaningless. You are essentially saying one group of organised humans and resources should help another group who require some "help".

But people are not "helped" as groups, they are "helped" as individuals because they experience life as individuals.

Since people are "helped" as and by other individuals, that busts out the myth that the govt can, and should "help" "the disadvantaged".

"Individuals help other individuals in need" Great. Since keeping actions and associations VOLUNTARY is a good idea, the only MORAL position I can find is that “help” to individuals who “need” it should be left to those who WILFULLY CHOOSE to render assistance: i.e. private acts of charity.

The only way a govt can “help” is to forcibly take from those who “have” – even if they don’t “have” much and re-distribute it to those who “need”.

Of course everyone has different "ideas" of what words mean. But unless the master-debaters agree on the definition of words -- i.e. they are constrained to specific contexts -- the discussion will go nowhere because the words just become rojak.

"the elected govt promised to look after the less able. I would like to hear the govt saying otherwise. "

I didn't realise that you were a humourist on top of being an excellent satirist. John Howard (ex-PM of Australia) once saidthat there are core promises and non-core promises. The latter can be broken easily and the former needs some excuse to be given when they are broken. The lesson to learn is "never trust a politician or a used-car salesman"

Do you seriously believe that the Government will ever "say otherwise"? This is like committing political suicide. The main purpose in life for a political party is to win the elections. Mah Bow Tan let it slip when he said that "everything is related to the elections".

The happenings in the Ang Mo Kio Town Council are outrageous. I am not going to elaborate as the details are everywhere. The similarities be...

Headphones

Electronics

ebay

Disclaimer

As owner of this blog, I bear no responsibility to what other contributors/bloggers may post. I encourage all to speak freely without indulging in libel or defamatory content. Anyone who feels offended by any posting can email me and I will remove the offending article if appropriate. Contact me at redbeansg@yahoo.com